Load of rubbish!!

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Nosferatu the Vampire is an awful movie. So it had to be popular and it had to have a sequel that is even worst. The 1922 version of Nosferatu is a great movie. It is one of the scariest movies ever made. And this is just awful. It is badly written. It has an awful ending. It not scary at all. This movie is a wast of time. It is also a wast of money do not see this awful movie. Read the book Dracula. See the 1922 version Nosferatu. See the 1931 version of Dracula. Do see this awful sequel to Nosferatu the vampire. The ending is so stupid. There are so many good Dracula movies out there and this one is awful. Do not see this movie. It is total pooh pooh.

A vampire hunter (Christopher Plummer) goes to Venice where the infamous vampire Nosferatu (Klaus Kinski) was last seen 2 centuries ago, and soon Old Two Teeth starts biting necks again, as old habits die hard. Traditional methods like sunlight or the sign of the cross do not scare Nosferatu, but it is said the love of a virgin might be dangerous to him, is any of the ladies interested? It's not a good movie, it's not a bad movie, it simply is a pile of various bits and pieces, ranging from genius to rubbish. After several directors were fired, producer Caminito finished the movie somehow - I imagine it must have been a case of "it's better to make a painful break than draw out the agony". Venice, however, is a perfect setting for a vampire movie with its ancient, dark, decaying buildings. The warm, colorful carnival scenes provide stark contrast for the cold blue light of the early morning chases when Nosferatu is looking for victims. Unfortunately, when the tension is rising, often something ridiculous happens, for example the attempt to shoot the vampire with a shotgun (results in a cannonball hole to see through) which will immediately destroy the efforts. It's too clumsy to appeal to an art movie audience (who may have enjoyed Herzog's Nosferatu) and too confusing to be Saturday night fun for horror flick fans. Under the circumstances of its production, it's no surprise that 'Nosferatu a Venezia' failed, but I admit it is at least an interesting failure which is not just another vampire movie.I watched the Italian language DVD which has no subtitles in other languages.

Klaus Kinski was an exceptional actor who had the rare gift that he could turn a mediocre, even bad movie, through his sheer presence into a spectacle. His often very short but poignant performances in various B- and Thrash-movies are evidence enough.However, according to director Werner Herzog, during the shooting of the final scene of "Cobra Verde", Kinski muttered something along the line of 'I'm spent. I'm empty. I'm not there anymore'. Surely, the great actor would pass away a few years later, but not before starring in a number of films that would only confirm that statement. Kinskis own "Paganini" and "Nosferatu in Venice" would stand testament to that.Don't be fooled by the title. Werner Herzogs "Nosferatu" and "Nosferatu in Venice" have only one thing in common: Klaus Kinski playing a vampire. Don't expect any of Herzogs magic; Kinski is decades away from the majestic portrayal of a melancholic Count Dracula. Rather, Kinski was already immersed in his role as Paganini, which he had been virtually obsessed with. His Vampire in Venice is Paganini with fangs, a sexual satyr for who blood and copulation is synonym. Of course, analyzing the vampire mythology, this is technically not incorrect, but given Kinskis own (often proclaimed) hyper-sexuality, it makes the film seem sleazy and the viewer feeling like a voyeur.That is not to say that the movie is without atmosphere. Venice and its lagoons lend themselves perfectly well for a dark, mystic vampire melodrama and the soundtrack is excellent, only adding to its charm. But why call it "Nosferatu"? (Don't bother answering, it's a rhetoric question).Hence, this is one of the rare Kinski films where the actor doesn't enrich the picture but his participation is actually the main flaw.Still, the last 10 years haven't been kind to fans of vampire films; unless you're not through puberty, it's unlike you be able to enjoy the modern "Twighlight"-vampires and in the light of that, "Nosferatu in Venice" is an acceptable, though flawed and often disjointed, Gothic horror-story. 6 points from 10.

Nosferatu a Venezia, or Vampire in Venice as it's more commonly known as to English speaking audiences, starts with the arrival of Professor Paris Catalano (Christopher Plummer) in the beautiful European city of Venice. Professor Catalano has dedicated his whole life to the study of Nosferatu (do you think that pays well?) who disappeared in Venice during 1786, he has received a letter from Helietta Canins (Barbara De Rossi) who claims that a coffin in her basement contains the body of Nosferatu (Klaus Kinski). Catalano checks it out but disagrees, to try & prove her point (I think) Helietta organises a séance & hires a medium (Clara Colosimo) to try & contact Nosferatu. It turns out Calatano was right & Nosferatu isn't in Helietta's basement but the séance does raise Nosferatu from his 200 year sleep & after consulting with a gypsy (!) Nosferatu heads off in search of those who summoned him. Oh, & to add to the excitement he also has a few nice boat rides down various Venice canal's...This Italian production was written, produced & in part directed by Augusto Caminito & is a loose sequel to Werner Herzog's Nosferatu the Vampyr (1979) although the actual connection with that film is nothing more than Kinski reprising his role as Nosferatu & even then he looks completely different in each film. The script by Caminito is a bit on the dull side, takes itself very seriously & is an absolute mess. I would imagine that the various reported production problems were the reason, nothing in the film makes any real sense & things, people, sub-plots & unnecessary flashbacks just come & go with little regard for narrative cohesion. There are a few odd flashbacks, Donald Pleasence's character Don Alvise just rambles on about God for a few scenes before he is completely dropped, why would Professor Catalano spend his entire life studying Nosferatu & when he finally finds him decides to commit suicide, what was in the coffin, why did half it's face glow red & then turn to dust & what the hell are all those gypsies & that woman's magic crystal ball all about? The whole film feels fractured & that various different people with opposing ideas & aims worked on it. Having said that it's watchable & just about strange enough to maintain ones interest plus the ironic ending where Nosferatu who is tired of eternal life & wants to die is hunted by some Vampire hunters who actually kill Helietta instead & since Nosferatu needs the unconditional love of a virgin to die the Vampire hunters have in fact achieved the opposite of what they wanted to do.Right, now lets get this straight shall we. Apparently producer Caminito hired Maurizio Lucidi as director & he even shot a few scenes but Caminito fired him. Caminito then hired Pasquale Squitieri to write & direct, however his screenplay was apparently too expensive to shoot so he was sacked as well. Caminito then hired a third director Mario Caiano, unfortunately on his first day Kinski got into a 'violent argument' with Caiano & he too left the director's chair. Caminito then decided to just direct the thing himself but had no experience so he was helped by his assistant Luigi Cozzi, but it doesn't end there folks because it is also reported that Kinski shot a fair amount of the film himself. The saying 'too many cooks spoil the broth' comes to mind & I think it's a perfect phrase to describe Nosferatu a Venezia. The film is undoubtedly stylish & has some great scenes but they're lost within the mess of a story. Forget about any gore, a bit of blood & a few people fall on some spiked railings, that's it. There's some nudity as well if that's your thing.Technically the film is very good with some great costumes, sets & Venice itself makes for an unusual location. It has nice cinematography & music, it's just a shame the film had so many behind-the-camera problems. The acting was OK although am I the only one who thinks Kinski looks terrible in this? He looks like Peter Stringfellow on a bad day!Nosferatu a Venezia was a disappointment, if the story had been stronger this could have been a decent sequel, as it is it's a curious mess both in front of & behind-the-camera. Could have been so much more, watch Nosferatu the Vampyr again instead.